Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ISSN 2229-5518
Abstract — In this paper, we consider the modal analysis of small frames. Firstly, we construct the 3D model using H8 elements and find
the natural frequencies of the frame focusing our attention on the modes in the XY plane. Secondly, we construct the 2D model (plane
stress model) using Q4 elements. We concluded that the results of both models are very close to each other’s. Then we formulate the
stiffness matrix and the mass matrix of the 3-noded Timoshenko beam that is well suited for thick and short beams like in our case. Finally,
we model the corners where the horizontal and vertical bar meet with a special matrix. The results of our new model (3-noded Timoshenko
beam for the horizontal and vertical bars and a special element for the corners based on the Q4 elements) are very satisfying when
performing the modal analysis.
Index Terms— Corner element, Guyan reduction, High-order Timoshenko beam, modal analysis of frames, rigid link, shear locking, and
short beams.
—————————— ——————————
Notations
E Young’s modulus of elasticity v Poisson coefficient
ρ density of the material h height of the beam cross-section
IJSER
b width of the beam cross section A area of the beam cross section
I moment of inertia of the beam cross section K stiffness matrix of the element
M mass matrix of the element dof degree-of-freedom
T
2 2
he Euler-Bernoulli beam element is the most used element
for performing the modal analysis of beams and frames. Where, L is the length of the element, b and h are the width
This type of beam element gives an exact solution for the and the height of the beam respectively. µ is the correction
modal analysis problem given that we have long and slender factor for shear energy; generally taken 5/6 for beams with
beam. Whether the beam is clamped, pinned, or free, from any standard rectangular cross sections and 9/10 for circular
side, meshing it with EB elements will produce excellent section beams [3]. Many formulations of the Timoshenko beam
results. However, when the beam becomes more and more exist, [4], [5], [6], and [7].
short, i.e., when the ratio of the width of the beam to its length
The degrees of freedom of this element are:
is > 0.1, the EB beam elements are no longer valid for a modal
analysis. We must use Timoshenko beam elements for these v 1 : transverse displacement of the beam at the left node
cases. The 2-noded Timoshenko beam element is very much
θ 1 : rotation of the beam section at the left node
used in most software and analyses [1]. In the next paragraph,
we will explain how the stiffness and mass matrix of such a v 2 : transverse displacement of the beam at the right node
beam element are calculated using linear simple shape
functions. Following the same procedure, but using high-order θ 2 : rotation of the beam section at the right node
shape functions, say quadratic ones, we will formulate the In this model, v and θ are independent variables, thus they can
stiffness and mass matrix for this new 3-noded element that be interpolated independently. By using isoparametric linear
we will call “Timo3” element. shape functions for both variables v and θ:
1 1
2 THE REGULAR 2-NODED TIMOSHENKO BEAM 𝑁1 = (1 − 𝜉) 𝑁2 = (1 + 𝜉)
2 2
ELEMENT
𝑣(𝜉) = [𝑁1 (𝜉) 𝑁2 (𝜉)][𝑣1 𝑣2 ]𝑇
In a Timoshenko beam theory, plane sections remain plane
after deformation but not necessary perpendicular to the 𝜃(𝜉) = [𝑁1 (𝜉) 𝑁2 (𝜉)][𝜃1 𝜃2 ]𝑇
neutral axis. The plane section rotates by an amount, θ, equal The bending strain is [8]:
to the rotation of the neutral axis, μ, minus the shear strain γ.
𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑁1 𝑑𝑁2 𝑑𝑑
𝜅= = =� 𝜃1 + 𝜃2 �
The strain energy for an element of length L is [2]: 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 94
ISSN 2229-5518
−1 𝜉−1 1 −𝜉−1
Where 𝐵𝑠 = � � is the shear strain matrix of the 2 0 1 0
𝐿 2 𝐿 2
element?
0 0 0 0
The virtual displacement is dv = N.[𝑑𝑑1 𝑑𝑑1 𝑑𝑑2 𝑑𝜃2 ]𝑇 M = ρAL/6
1 0 2 0
and the virtual strains are:
0 0 0 0
𝑑𝑑 = 𝐵𝑏 [𝑑𝑑1 𝑑𝜃1 𝑑𝑣2 𝑑𝑑2 ]𝑇
𝑑𝑑 = 𝐵𝑠 [𝑑𝑑1 𝑑𝑑1 𝑑𝑣2 𝑑𝜃2 ]𝑇
IJSER
3 HIGH ORDER TIMOSHENKO BEAM ELEMENT
The bending moment is (QUADRATIC)
M = D b .B b .[𝑣1 𝜃1 𝑣2 𝜃2 ]𝑇 where D b = E I Let us consider the Timoshenko beam element with 3 nodes
And the shear force is shown in Figure 1.
𝐾𝑏 = � 𝐵𝑏𝑇 𝐷𝑏 𝐵𝑏 𝑑𝑑
Ω
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 95
ISSN 2229-5518
And 𝛾 = 𝐵𝑠 [𝑣1 𝜃1 𝑣2 𝜃2 𝑣3 𝜃3 ]𝑇 Table 1. Modal analysis of the cantilevered beam for different modelling
Where Q4
Mode
2 1 1 −4𝜉 2 1 1 Mode shape Freq EB Error Timo3 Error
𝐵𝑠 = � �𝜉 − �
𝐿 2 2
(𝜉 − 𝜉 2 )
𝐿
𝜉2 − 1
𝐿
�𝜉 + �
2 2
(−𝜉 − 𝜉 2 )� No
(Hz)
is the shear strain matrix of the element.
Again, matrix K b is obtained using the exact integration 1
32 33 3% 32 0%
whereas K s is obtained using the reduced integration
technique (one order less than required). Upon integrating, we
2
get: 172 205 19% 177 3%
0 0 0 0 0 0 3 254 253 0% 253 0%
0 7 0 -8 0 1
4
0 0 0 0 0 0 411 574 40% 429 4%
Kb =
0 -8 0 16 0 -8
5
0 0 0 0 0 0 684 760 11% 720 5%
IJSER
18L 4L2 -24L 4L2 6L -2L2 m), the Timo3 beam element shows better performance even in
Kb -96 -24L 192 0 -96 24L small number of mesh elements (10).
=µGA/(36L) 24L 4L2 0 16 -24L 4L2
12 6L -96 -24L 84 -18L 5 MODAL ANALYSIS OF A SMALL L-FRAME
-6L -2L2 24L 4L2 -18L 4L2 Let’s test the Timo3 beam element on a small L-frame clamped
at its bottom as shown in the next figure:
4 0 2 0 -1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 16 0 2 0
M = ρAL/30
0 0 0 0 0 0
-1 0 2 0 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 96
ISSN 2229-5518
Freq
1 55 54 Mode Mode (Hz) EB Error Timo3 Error
No shape
Q4
IJSER
4 454 639 41% 418 8%
5 582 584
6 655 656
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 97
ISSN 2229-5518
1 0 0 0 0 0
Special element 0 1 -3*a 0 0 0
(64Q4condensed) 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 -2*a 0 0 0
Timo3 elements 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 -1*a 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 5. Special treatment for the connection
0 1 1*a 0 0 0
(at the corner)
IJSER
64 (Q4) elements Rigid link
0 0 0 1 0 3*b
u5
2m
0 0 0 0 1 0
u6
u4 0 0 0 1 0 2*b
0 0 0 0 1 0
u2 0 0 0 1 0 1*b
u3 Rigid link 0 0 0 0 1 0
u1
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0
Figure 6. Corner modeled with 64 Q4 elements and rigid links at the 0 0 0 1 0 -1*b
interface
0 0 0 0 1 0
The stiffness matrix k e (8×8) and the mass matrix M e (8×8) of
each Q4 element are known [13]. We assemble the 64 Q4 0 0 0 1 0 -2*b
elements to find the global stiffness and mass matrix of the 0 0 0 0 1 0
corner k(162×162) and M(162×162). Using static condensation
(Guyan reduction technique), we can reduce the global 0 0 0 1 0 -3*b
stiffness matrices to k c (34×34) and M c (34×34) after elimination 0 0 0 0 1 0
of the 128 non-interface dof. The rigid link can only translate in
2 directions and rotate in one direction thus 3 dof are needed 0 0 0 1 0 -4*b
at each interface. Therefore, our special element will have 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 ];
dof, 3 at each node.
Where a and b are the width and column of the corner divided
The reduced stiffness matrix k r (6×6) is given by: k r = LTk c L, by 8 respectively.
Where L(34×6) is the matrix giving the values of the dof Using partition matrix notation,
relative to both interfaces given by:
k rr = kk(1:34,1:34); k rc = kk(1:34,35:162);
L=[
k cr = kk(35:162,1:34); k cc = kk(35:162,35:162);
1 0 0 0 0 0
kk cond = k rr – k rc . (k cc )-1.k cr ;
0 1 -4*a 0 0 0
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 98
ISSN 2229-5518
Therefore, we can find that k = LT.kk cond .L. Where Table 4. Modal analysis of the L-frame using improved modeling
k(6×6) was found using Matlab®. Freq
The same procedure can be used to find the mass matrix M, Mode (Hz) Timo3 64Q4condensed
Shape
No Error Error
keeping in mind that it is a function of the elementary mass Q4
matrix of each Q4 element and the stiffness matrix k cc [14].
M rr = MM(1:34,1:34); M rc = MM(1:34,35:162);
1 54 56 4% 55 2%
M cr = MM(35:162,1:34); M cc = MM(35:162,35:162);
MM cond = M rr – M rc .(kcc)-1.k rc T- k rc .(kcc)-1.M rc T+ k rc .(k cc )-
.M cc .(k cc )-1.k rc T;
1
2 146 111 24% 150 2%
M=LT.MM cond .L
For our L-frame example, a = 2/8, b = 2/8, E=2e11,
v = 0.3, t = 2, the matrix k for the corner element
(64Q4condensed) is 3 294 324 10% 311 6%
k=[
5.0708e+11 1.6119e+11 -5.9359e+10 -5.0708e+11 -
1.6119e+11 -2.8653e+11 4 454 418 8% 473 4%
IJSER
-5.9359e+10 2.8653e+11 4.062e+11 5.9359e+10 -2.8653e+11 5 584 613 5% 602 3%
-6.0307e+10
-5.0708e+11 -1.6119e+11 5.9359e+10 5.0708e+11
1.6119e+11 2.8653e+11 6 656 728 11% 700 7%
-1.6119e+11 -5.0708e+11 -2.8653e+11 1.6119e+11
5.0708e+11 -5.9359e+10 Average 10% 4%
-2.8653e+11 5.9359e+10 -6.0307e+10 2.8653e+11 - The above table shows the results of the modal analysis of the
5.9359e+10 4.062e+11 ] test L-frame. By using a 64Q4condensed element at the corners
the error of the average of the first 6 natural frequencies of the
m=[
test L-frame was reduced from 10.3% (using only Timo3 beam
10588 -2319.7 -1081 7093.5 1524.1 288.55 elements for the horizontal and vertical bars) to 4.1% (using
Timo3 beam elements for the horizontal and vertical bars but
-2319.7 37625 -8288.2 3115.4 7093.5 -7805.7
with a 64Q4condensed element at the corner).
-1081 -8288.2 7164.2 -7805.7 288.55 3108
7093.5 3115.4 -7805.7 37625 -2319.7 -8288.2 8 ANALYTICAL EXPRESSION OF THE
STIFFNESS AND MASS MATRIX OF THE
1524.1 7093.5 288.55 -2319.7 10588 -1081
CORNER ELEMENT
288.55 -7805.7 3108 -8288.2 -1081 7164.2 ] We know that the stiffness matrix k(6×6) and the mass matrix
Now that we have found the stiffness matrix k(6,6) and the M(6×6) are both a function of: The width of the corner, the
mass matrix M(6,6) of the corner element; the height of the corner, the elastic modulus E of the material at
“64Q4condensed” element with Timo3 elements for the the corner, the Poisson coefficient v of the material at the
horizontal and vertical bars, we can model our test L-frame corner, and the density ρ of the material at the corner.
and perform the modal analysis.
If we let sl = b/a = the ratio of both the height and the width of
Table 4 shows the results of the modal analysis of our test L- the corner, the expression of the stiffness matrix will be a
frame using 64Q4condensed element at the corner and Timo3 function of: E, v, sl, and a only.
beam elements for the horizontal and vertical bars.
We can easily show that the stiffness matrix k can be written as
k = E. [k i ] where E is the Young’s modulus of the material at
the corner. Let’s find the expression of k i .
If we vary v from 0.1 to 0.9 and sl from 1 to 10, and by using
the modeling technique (the multiple nonlinear regression) we
can find the value of each number of the stiffness matrix using
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 99
ISSN 2229-5518
the function surface fitting in Matlab. For example, the value of The R-square value from all the regression analyses of all
k 11 is: terms k ij of the stiffness matrix k and the mass matrix M ij is at
least 0.99. Thus, the model fits very well. Using this surface
k 11 (v,sl) = p00 + p10*v + p01*sl + p20*v^2 + p11*v*sl + p02*sl^2
fitting in Matlab, we were able to find the analytical expression
+ p30*v^3 + p21*v^2*sl + p12*v*sl^2 + p03*sl^3 + p40*v^4 +
of all terms of the stiffness matrix k and mass matrix M of the
p31*v^3*sl + p22*v^2*sl^2 + p13*v*sl^3 + p04*sl^4 + p50*v^5 +
64Q4condensed element.
p41*v^4*sl + p32*v^3*sl^2 + p23*v^2*sl^3 + p14*v*sl^4 +
p05*sl^5 After finding the analytical expression for the stiffness matrix
and the mass matrix for the corner element, and by modeling
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
the horizontal and vertical bars with Timo3 elements, let’s run
p00 = -1.317 (-1.446, -1.189) p10 = 39.28 (38.14, 40.43) the modal analysis on another L-frame. For example:
p01 = 0.3133 (0.2174, 0.4091)
p20 = -210.7 (-215.6, -205.9) p11 = -3.461 (-3.781, -3.141)
p02 = 0.03668 (0.00061, 0.072)
p30 = 496.4 (486.3, 506.5) p21 = 15.54 (14.89, 16.19) 3m
p12 = 0.01262 (-0.044, 0.069)
p03 = -0.00452 (-0.011, 0.0022) p40 = -529.8 (-540, -519.6)
p31 = -26.81 (-27.5, -26.12)
p22 = -0.01135 (-0.068, 0.045) p13 = -0.00116 (-0.0065,
0.0042) p04 = 0.0003 (-0.0003, 0.0009) 4m
IJSER
p32 = 0.0568 (0.0299, 0.0837)
p23 = -0.0031 (-0.0055, -0.00076) p14 = 0.0001 (-7.3e-5, 0.0003)
p05 = -1.07e-5 (-3.3e-5, 1.1e-5)
Goodness of fit: SSE: 39.05 R-square: 0.9986 Adjusted R-
square: 0.9986 RMSE: 0.07289 2m
For the mass matrix:
Figure 7. New test L-frame
M 11 (v,sl) = p00 + p10*v + p01*sl + p20*v^2 + p11*v*sl + Running the modal analysis again on this new test L-frame, we
p02*sl^2 + p30*v^3 + p21*v^2*sl + p12*v*sl^2 + p03*sl^3 + get the results shown in Table 5.
p40*v^4 + p31*v^3*sl + p22*v^2*sl^2 + p13*v*sl^3 + p04*sl^4
+ p50*v^5 + p41*v^4*sl + p32*v^3*sl^2 + p23*v^2*sl^3 +
p14*v*sl^4 + p05*sl^5
Coefficients (with 95% confidence bounds):
p00 = 13.45 (13.41, 13.5) p10 = -5.285 (-5.661, -4.909)
p01 = -0.750 (-0.781, -0.718)
p20 = -20.78 (-22.36, -19.21) p11 = 0.551 (0.446, 0.656)
p02 = 0.4257 (0.4139, 0.4376)
p30 = 57.59 (54.3, 60.89) p21 = 0.1597 (-0.05333, 0.3728)
p12 = -0.0226 (-0.041, -0.0039)
p03 = -0.0478 (-0.0500, -0.0455) p40 = -57.38 (-60.72, -54.04)
p31 = -3.889 (-4.115, -3.663)
p22 = 0.3484 (0.3298, 0.367) p13 = -0.01205 (-0.0138, -
0.0102) p04 = 0.0034 (0.0032, 0.0037)
p50 = 21.83 (20.52, 23.15) p41 = 2.482 (2.381, 2.584)
p32 = -0.02902 (-0.0378, -0.02)
p23 = -0.016 (-0.0168, -0.0152) p14 = 0.00089 (0.00082,
0.00096) p05 = -0.00011 (-1e-4, -1e-4)
Goodness of fit: SSE: 4.199 R-square: 1 Adjusted
R-square: 1 RMSE: 0.0239
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 6, Issue 1, January-2015 100
ISSN 2229-5518
Table 5. Modal analysis of another test L-frame using improved modeling for the horizontal and vertical bars and “64Q4condensed”
Freq element at the corner.
Mode (Hz) 64Q4condensed
Shape Timo3 Error
No Error 10 REFERENCES
Q4
[1] R. J. Astley, Finite Elements in Solids and Structures : An
Introduction, Springer, 1992.
1 20 20 1% 20 2%
[2] H. Bang and Y. Kwon, he Finite Element Method Using
MATLAB, CRC Press, 2000.
IJSER
element for bending and vibration problems," Journal of
5 371 378 2% 377 2% Sound and Vibration, p. 309–326, 1988.
The previous table shows again that our special modeling at [9] J. Reddy, "On locking-free shear deformable beam finite
the corner with 64Q4condensed elements gives closer results elements," Computer Methods Applied Mechanical
to the reference model (Q4 model) in modal analysis. Engineering, p. 113–132, 1997.
[16] J. Przemieniecki, Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis, finite element meshes," International Journal For Numerical
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Methods In Engineering, pp. 1057-1080, 2000.
IJSER
IJSER © 2015
http://www.ijser.org